ABSTRACT
Hand's Reflections without Rules appeared at a time when the intense debates about the rules of proper science had come to an end. This ending was not a closure; it did not mean that any consensus was reached. It was mainly a “turn” or a “move away.” Like in the dominant economic view of the 1990s, undisturbed emerging systems were considered to be good, so the only ethical rule was no rule. The relevant question is whether this view still bears relevance after a decade of major crises. According to the authors of the Dahlem report not anymore. What is needed is an ethical code in particular when economic knowledge can do harm. But the nature of these rules are different than those of the positivists: (1) know what you know and (2) be honest about it. These can never be universal rules, but rules have to be situated locally and historically and sociologically contextualized. Philosophy and history of science and science studies therefore still have an important role to play.
